When reading McAfee's book there was so much I wanted to comment on. I basically desired to respond to almost every page. I noticed that there were really 4 main topics McAfee was addressing.

Christians vs. Christianity---He spend a whole chapter talking about the differences between how Christians act today vs. what we find in the Bible. I am still at a loss as to how that disproves Jesus' resurrection.

Morality--He states, "Atheists can be moral without God." To this I don't think anyone disagrees.

God's Character--This was the main crux of his book. Unfortunately this was mostly a straw man argument. David doesn't understand the nature of God at all.

Bible Contradictions--Most of these are so elementary I have to wonder his sincerity in pointing them out.

In today's post I want to respond to some points David made in regards to the first category. He states his premise on page 43, "I will show that how Christianity is learned and practiced today is in many ways different than the Holy Bible suggests it should be..." I do wonder what the point is? He seems to be arguing that since Christians today practice a different Christianity than what is found in the Bible then the God of the Bible is false. This is known as a non-sequitor. That is, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. We can simply ask, "SO WHAT?!!?". I don't know if David has ever been to Church, I presume he has. But if he were in a church for any length of time he might have heard a few sermons from a minister preaching this same tune. Just because Christians don't practice what the Bible says doesn't make the Bible false. In fact it only gives credibility to the Biblical account for that is exactly what the Bible says men who call themselves Christians will do. So thank you David for affirming Biblical Truth!

2nd Timothy 4:3, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,"

Acts 20:29-30, "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them."

Matthew 7:21-23, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'"

On pages 2-3 he states, “religion can be something similar to genetic inheritance in the rates at which is passed on from generation to generation via the parents.” Wow! What ground breaking news in the field of genetics. I wonder where he got that information? Oh wait....there isn't a footnote....oh....must just be his opinion. And this opinion is contradicted by common sense. Think about this for a minute. He just said that "religion", aka a belief system, is passed down to children like genetics. Would he test atheism by the same standards? What if I said, "Atheism can be something similar to genetic inheritance in the rates at which is passed on from generation to generation via the parents."? Nobody would accept this...why not? Because it completely ignores common experience. How many people do you know who grew up Christian later left the faith? How many people do you know who didn't grow up Christian and later converted? Thus, religion isn't something passed on like genetics. It is something taught just like any other belief system and it is something that is chosen freely.

On pages 5-6 he says, "When a child is raised in religion, it eliminates the choice in what is arguably the most important decision on can make in a lifetime...When a parent forces a child into a religion, the parent is effectively handicapping his or her own offspring by limiting the abilities of the child to question the world around him or her and make informed decisions.” I think every Christian would agree that deciding to follow Christ is the most important decision of your life. But again I have to ask would he give the same critique to atheism? His arguments cut both ways. If a child is raised in atheism, then according to David, it eliminates the child's choice. But his logic is still flawed. Common experience shows us that people have the ability to choose. Some reject their parent's belief, regardless of what that belief system is, and some accept it. Also, this is an attack on child raising techniques not Christianity. Even if David was right how does that discount the historical resurrection of Jesus. Which, by the way, I am still awaiting his response as to how he denies Jesus existed in spite of the historical evidence I provided for him (see my post here). Finally, what does this guy expect? You have to teach your kids something. The choice isn't between to teach or not to teach. The parental choice is over what to teach their child. For David he believes that a Christian household, "is one that often breeds hate, ignorance, and justified violence." This is known as a Straw-Man Fallacy. It is true that some households which call themselves Christians might fit this category but Christian households do not fit it by default. I know of a plethora of Christian households that do the exact opposite and plenty of atheistic households that actually breed hate, ignorance and violence. I was a Police Officer for Henrico County VA and I can testify that most of my calls to household disputes were not to Christian homes.

In our final analysis of topic #1 we find no credible argument. So what....there are Christians today who set a bad example of what it means to be a Christians. This is exactly what the Bible says would happen and it lends no evidence against the existence of God or the Resurrection of Jesus. How would you respond to some of David's critiques?